Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Mome Trols Pltons ('2) Sanqay ('PO) Ecuador , 1 1983 271 925
~ x i s h n ~ World Heritage Tropical Forest Sites
) World nRImgt?~r0pka~ ~orest Sit& F ' , - . Year inscribed Size (ha)
Los Kat~osi Dar~en ('16 +19) Talarnanca -La Arnistad (*15+21) Tlkal ('l 7) .
. . I 33 World Herjtage ~rwical Forest Sites 26,642;477
I AsialOceania
Wet Troplcs of Queensland ('64) Ujung Kulon ('65) Manas ('61) 1 985 39 100 The Sundarbans (I-B) r 5 9 7 88) , IndralBangladesh 1987/1997 728,000 Slnharaja ('57) 1 S ~ I ~ a n k a 8.864 1 Tha~land 577,464
I Total 4,304,367
Latin B South America . . -
Colornb~a~Panama 198111994 669 OOC 1 . Costa RlcalPanama 1983 740 142 Guatemala 1 1979 57 600
RIO Platano (V8) 1992 . / 500,pGG 1 Slan Ka'an ('13) 1 1987 ' 528,000 Machu Picchu ('6) 1 1983 1 32.592 Manu ('7) 1987 1,532,806 Rio Abtseo ('1 4) Peru 1 1990 274 520 Canalrna ('I) Venezuele / 1994 . 3,000 000 1 Total 1 / 7,613,442 --
Africa
I*) Number In Darenthesis wrres~onds to Macs No 1 2 and 3
.
Dja ('3 1) I Cameroor Mount Nimba ('29) Comoe (-28) Cote D'ivbire 1983 1,149,250 Tal ('34) C3te D'lvoire 1982 330 000 Vlrunga ('41) ' . Dem. Rep Congo 1979 790 000 Kahuzl-Blega 0 5 ) Salonga ('43) Okap~ ('56) Mount Kenya ('42)
Dern Rep Congo 1981 600 OCC Dem Rep Congo / 1984 I 3,600 000 Dem Rep Congo 1 1996 1 1 372,625 'Kenya , 1937 142,071
Ts~ngy Bernaraha ('39) I Maoagascar 1990 152 000 / Ntokolo-Koba ('35) Senegal 198; 1 913000 4 Vallee de Mal Selous ('52) Bw~ndt Impenetrable ('40) Rwenzor~ Mounta~ns ('39) Total
Seychelles ' 1 1983 , 20 c
Tanzania l 1982 I 5 OOC,OOO Uganda 1994 1 32,092 Uganda . 1 199J 99,600 1
---p I 1 (4,724,668 1
Table of Contents
Preface List of Participants Concluding Statement Rccomrnendations to the World Heritage Committee People and World Heritage Forests Human Use of World Heritage Tropical Forests The Role of Assessment A List of Potential Forest Sites for Consideration for World Heritagc Nomination
World Heritage Tropical Forest Sites and Forest Protected Areas in:
Asia South America Africa
Preface .:
of the biodiversity of the world's tropical forests is a subject of intense debate that o be considered in a number of international processes:
The Convention on Biological Divc:rsity has identified forests as amongst its highest priorities. The Inter-Governmental Forum on Forests is addressing forest biological diversity issues through special studies and inter-se,ssional meetings. The International Tropical Timber Organisation has a longstanding commitment to improving the status of biodiversity in forests managed for timber. The World Bank and the World Wide Fund for Nature have set ambitious targets for forest- protected areas and for better ma~lagement of production forests. The maintenance of biodiversity is a major criterion against which the quality of forest management is judged in all certif~cation and eco-labelling programmes, most notably those under the aegis of the Forest Stewardship Council. A large number of government>; have adopted national biodiversity action plans for conservation and improved forest management.
A broad consensus is emerging from all of these processes that the threat to forest biodiversity is one of the major environmental challenges that the world faces and that action is required immediately to ensure the conservation of vital forest areas, especially in the tropics. Meanwhile. biologists are concluding that biodiveniity is much :less evenly distributed in the tropics than had previously been thought; some areas of forest have a rnuch higher value for biodiversity than others. At the same time, it is being su~mised that the richest biodiversity sites are not necessarily those that have been least influenced by humankind. Much of the world's forcst biodiversity is the product of millennia of forest manipulation by people. Sites of major significance for biodiversity may be located in the remotest forests of the Amazon or New Guinea, while others may be in areas with high population densities for instarice in Western India, Southern China and Central America. Some of the world's most biodiverst forests are outstanding examples of a harmonious and sustainable relationship between forests and people.
The World Heritage Convention ha:; now been ratified by over 160 countries, and 33 of the world's most biodiverse forests have already been inscribed on the World Heritage List. A funding mechanism exists through which modest financial support is channeled to meet the conservation needs of some of these sites. The purpose of the Berastagi policy dialogue was to bring together people with an interest i l international programmes to conserve biodiversity to discuss how the World Heritage Convention might facilitate international efforts to strengthen and secure the conservation of the world's most richly biodiverse forests. A number of broad objectives were established, and those at the meeting agreed to work through their own organisations toward these shared goals. A tentative list of candidate World Heritage sites was developed from which additions to the present list might be drawn.
More detailed discussions were held on three issues that the World Heritage Convention will need to confront in coming years:
First, how to address the issue of how much human modification of forests is consistent with World Heritage status, especially to dispel the myth that conservation objectives are best met by excluding people;
Second, how to reconcile the needs and interests of local people with the maintenance of the global values of the sites, attempting to learn from the rather mixed success of attempts to reconcile conservation and developr~ent;
And third, how to establish scientil'ically defensible methods for detecting changes in the biodiversity of tropical forest sites tio as to provide indicators which could trigger adaptive management responses.
Brief papers analysing these issues were prepared during the meeting and are included in this
Much of the discussion could have applied equally to forests of the temperate and boreal zones. We chose not to adopt that more inclusib'e approach becaus~: it would have required expanding the scope of the dialogue. We hope that this part of tht: global agenda will be tackled by someone else.
We enjoyed the privilege of cond6cting our discussions close to the border of one of the world's most magnificent tropical forests, the Gunur~g Leuser National Park. Participants were able to visit this park and to discuss with its managers problems related to its management. The park is the object of one of the world's largest international initiativt:~ to support the conservation of forest biodiversity. a major project of the European Comrnission to conserv,: the entire 21.5 million-hectare Leuser ecosystem. Thc park itself, along with its unique management. oflered a highly appropriate setting for our discussions.
The meeting produced a consensus that the World Heritage Convention is. indeed, a potentially very valuable rnechanism for achieving significant medium-term targets for the conservation of forest biodiversity. The participants committ1:d themselves to working together to achieve this goal.
10 February 1 999
N. Ishwaran Muslimin Nasution Jeff Sayer Jim Thorsell Senior Specialist, Minister of 1;orestly Director General, Director. World Heritage Center and Estate C'rops ClFOK Nature Heritage
Program
List of Participants
Name Institution Nationality
ANDERSON, Patrick
BAKER, John
BASKINAS, Teresa
BERG, Joy
BIBBY, Colin
BLOK, Sharrnini
BLOUCH. Raleigh
BOYLE, Tirn
CHOKKALINGAM, Unna
COSTA, Jose Pedro
De FREITAS, Maria
DIDIER, Gisele
DWIATMO, S.
GILLISON, Andy
GRIFFITHS, Mike
HARTONO, Barnbang
HARTSHORN, Gary
HITCHCOCK, Peter
HOLESGROVE, Rod
HUNTLEY, Brian
ISHWAWN. N.
KARTAWINATA, Kuswata
KOVACS, Karen
KUSMAWARDHANI, Listya
Greenpeace I~iternational, Atnsterdarn
IUCN - Vientiime
W F - Philippines
Forest Service:, Washington D.C.
Birdlife Internstional, Cambridge
CIFOR, Bogor
Kerinici, N.P., Sungai Penuh
UNDP, New York
CIFOR, Bogor
Atlantic Forest Biosphere Reserve
ICWF, Sao F1aolo
Hurnboldt Institute
FORDA, Jakalta
CIFOR. Cairns
Leuser Ecosya.tern, Medan
Kornodo Nat~oial Park
Organisation of Tropical Stud~es
CSIRO, Calrng
Environment Australia, Canberra
Kirstenbosch Elotanic Garden, Cape Town
UNESCO, Pars
CIFOR. Bogor
U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washington D.C.
Ministry of Forestry, Jakarta
Australia
U SA
Philippines
U SA
U K
Sri Lanka
USA
U K
India
Brazil
Brazil
Colombia
lndones~a
Australia
U K
lndonesia
U SA
Australia
Australia
South Africa
Sri Lanka
lndonesia
USA
Indonesia
Name
LaFRANKIE, Jim
IAPHAM, Nicholas
LUBIS, Saodah
MACKINNON, Kathy
MARTIN-JONES, James
McNEELY, Jeff
MHANDO, M. Leornard
MITTERMEIER, Russ
MOHAN. V.P.
MOMBERG, Frank
MONK, Kathryn
MUNTINGH, Hemmo
NAPITUPULU, W.P.
NASUTION, Muslimin
NGOG NJE, Jean
NURDIN, T. Rizal
O'BRIEN, Tim
OVEL, Chad
POULSEN, John
PURNOMO, Agus
RAMOS, Mario
RANA, Devandra
RAUF, Kurnia
REHULINA, DJ
ROSE, Barbara
SAPARJADI, Koes
Institution Nationality
Smithsmian Institute, Singapore USA
UN Foundation, New York USA
Ministry of Forestry, Jakarta Indonesia
World Ejank, Washington D.C. U K
WWF -Washington D.C. UK
IUCN - Gland USA
Forest Ilepartment, Morogoro
Conser~ation Internat~onal, Washington D.C.
Indian Frorest Service
WWF -Jakarta
Leuser Development FJrogram. Medan
International Fund for Animal Welfare, Amsterdam
National Commission for UNESCO, Jakarta
Minister of Forestry. Jakarta
Ecole dc Faune de Garoua
Governor of North Sumatra, Medan
Wildlife Conservation Society , Bogor
WWF - Hanoi
CIFOR, Bogor
WWF - Jakarta
World Bank, Washington D.C.
WWF - International, Gland
PHPA, IAedan
Medan
CGIAR, Washington D.C.
PHPA, .lakarta
Tanzania
USA
India
Germany
U K
Netherlands
lndonesia
lndonesia
Cameroon
lndonesia
USA
USA
Denmark
lndonesia
Mexico
Nepal
lndonesia
lndonesia
USA
lndonesia
Name
SAXON, Earl
SAYER, Jeff
SHIEL, Douglas
SHEPHERD, Gill
SIGAM, Todd
SIZER, Nigel
SOEKARTIKO, Bambang
SOEMARSONO, R
SOUTHIDARA, Bounsalong
SRIYADI, Agus
STORK, N~gel SUPRIATNA, Jatna
TALBOTT. Kirk THORSELL, Jim THULSTRUP. Hans
VAN HEIST, Miriam
VU VAN DZUNG
WARDOYO, Eko
WATKINSON, Russel
WELLS, FAichael
WIBOWO, Tri
WlRYANTl
XAYSIDA, Bounthong
Institutior:
The Nature Conservancy, Cairns
CIFOR. Bcgor
CIFOR, Bcgor
ODI, London
CIFOR, Bogor
World Resources Inst., Washington 9.C. CIFOR, Bogor
PHPA, Jakarta
Ministry of Industry, Vientiane
PHPA, Bocor
James Cook University, Ciairns Conservation International, Jakarta Conservation International, Washington D.C.
IUCN - GI; nd UNESCO - Bangkok
CIFOR, Bo!gor
FIPI, Hanoi
Ministry of I-orestry, Medan
Wet Tropic:; Management Authority, Cairns
Oslo
PHPA, Ujur~g Kulon Birdlife International, Bogor
Department of Forestry, Vientiane
Nationality
U K
U K
Ireland
UK
USA
UK
lndonesia
lndonesia
LA0 P.D.R.
lndonesia
Australia
lndonesia
USA
Canada
Denmark
Netherlands Vietnam
lndonesia
Australia
U K
lndonesia
lndonesia
LA0 P.D.R.
Participants of the World Heritage Forests Meeting in Berastagi, December 1998
Concluding Statement
on1 7 to I I December 1998. 72 forest and biodiversity experts from 20 countries met in erastagi, North Sumatra, Indonesia. to cliscuss the World Heritage Convention as an instrument
conserving the biodiversity of tropical forests. The meeting arrived at the following
he World Heritage Convention. with its unique position within the framework of international conservation agreements, has a key role to play in conserving our planet's natural heritage, including the large proportion of global biodiversity (perhaps 70%) of terrestrial biodiversity) that exists in the world's tropical forests.Already, 33 tropical Forest sites, covering more than 26 million hectares, are included on the World Heritage l i s t .
Our vision is for a truly lepresentative 'n1:twork' of tropical forests under World Heritage protection. believe there is much potential to strengthen this network in line with the fundamental principles objectives of the Convention by supporting and assisting the work of the States Parties and the
NESCO World Heritage Centre.
his network of tropical forests should be expanded to include inore sites of outstanding universal e from various regions. Of equal inl~ortance. the management of these sites should be improved supported so that they might serve as models for 'bt:st practice' in management of protected areas.
)rid Heritage sites help counter problems associated with overexploitation of tropical forests by rving as critical refuges for plants, animals - and as a source of inspiration for peuple, which may vital in helping humanity adapt to an uncertain futurs. Safeguarding the rich variety of species and
cosystcins in World Heritage tropical torests - ranping li-om that of Indonesia's UAjung Kulon ational Park. home to one of the last remaining populations of the Javan rhino, to that of Manu ational Park, which is thought to have the highest cc~ncentration of species anywhere on Earth - a top priority for inter~iational conservation efforts.
orld Heritage sites should demonstrate how modern societies can manage areas ) prcserve universal biological values, thereby helping us to live in balance with the rest of nature.
These sites can serve as examples of how prol.ected areas with high biodiversity can be conserved while still meeting the livelihood needs of indigenous people in the region. World Heritage tropical forest sites also provide critical ecological services, including water catchment protection, nutrient recycling: and carbon sequestration.
To fully achieve its objectives and potential. the World Heritage Convention requires much greater support from civil society at all levels. Therefore. we: the participants at the Berastagi meeting, pledgc to promote such support from our respective institutions. Further; there is an urgent need to expalid the capacity of the Woi-Id Heritage Centre and IUCN (in its role as Technical Advisor oil natural site: to the Convention) as well as State Parties. Such i~nprove~nent will help to strcngther~ the managenieiit of existing tropical forest sites and to broaden the nomination of new sites in under-represented regions that have some of the world's most biologically rich tropical forests. This conimitnient requires both significantly increased funding from a range of sc,lurces and the developtnent of mechanisms for long-term support of this proposed network of :sites. We urge Governments, funding agencies and others to strengthen their support for existing and potential World Heritage tropical forest sites ancl to adopt additional funding mcchanisms.
Policies on trade, forestry. agriculture. water resources, transport. tourism, and development. among others, define the framework within which the World Heritage Convention must work. Thercforc, we call on Goveinments, the pi-ivate scctor, and all levels of civil society to ensure that the above policies do not adversely affect tropical forests that are on the Worltl Heritage list or that have the chaiac1e1-istics n-etled to bc considered for future listing.
Participants at the niceting noted uith concern that sorne existing World Heritage sites arc highly threatened by large-scalc developinents. We ulgc Governments to ensure the integrity of exisring World Heritage sites by working coopcrativcly to reduce negative irnpacls and t o maintain the sites' World Heritage values.
The cultural and natural components of the Convention can potentially work niul-e effxtively together, especially in relation to tropical forests that havc both outstanding concentrations of biodiversity ancl rich
traditional human cultures, many of which are similarly threatened. We urge Governments, civil society, and the private scctor to recognize the value of conserving outstanding examplcs of harmonious and sustainable human-forest relationships.
A set of more detailed rccornmend;~tions directed to the World Heritage Committee was adopted at the meeting and is attached.
The Berastagi meeting was jointly :;ponsored by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre. the Centre for International Forestry Research, the Indonesian Department of Forestry and Estate Crops, and the Leuser Development Programme.
Participants from the following org;inixations were present. and agreed to commend this statement and its recommendations both externally and to their own organizations for their consideration and support:
Department of the Environment, A~~stralia Alexander von Humboldt Biologic;~l Resources Research Institute, Colombia BirdLife International, UK Centre for International Forestry Raearch. Indonesia Consultative Group for 1nternation;ll Agricultur;il Research, USA Conservation International, USA Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management, Australia Ecole de Faune de Garoua, Cameroun Global Legislators Organized for a Balanced Erivironrnent. The Netherlands Greenpeace International, The Netherlands Hindu Kush Himalayan For11n1 for Forest Conservation and Management, Nepal Directorate General of Nature Prot~:ction and Conservation, Indonesia Regional Office of Ministry of Fwestry and Estate Crops, Aceh. Indonesia Regional Office of Ministry of' Forzstry. North Sumatra. lndonesia International Fund for Animal Welfare, The Netherlands IUCN, SW itzerland Kirstenbosch Botanic Garden. Republic of South Africa Komodo National Park. Indonesia Ministry of Indust~y and Handicraits, Lao PDR
Department of Forestry, Lao PDR Lcuscr Development Programme, Indonesia Leuser National Park Bureau, Indonesia UK Overseas Development Institute, UK Organization for Tropical Studies, USA Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Singapore Forestry Research Institute, Tanzan~a Thc Nature Conservancy, USA Ujong Kulon National Park, Indonesia UNDP, USA UNESCO Regional Ecological Sciences I'rogramme, 'Thailand UNESCO World Heritage Centre, France UN Foundation, USA Wet Tropics Management Authority, Australia Wildlife Conservation Society, USA World Bank, USA World Co~nmission on Forests and Sustainable Development, Switzerland World Resources Institute, USA WWF (International, USA. Philippines. Indonesia. Vietnam)
Recommendations to the World Heritage Committee
Participants at the Berastagi me-ting reviewed the forest biodiversity priorities that emerged from these various studies and compiled a draft list of sites judged to be of potential World Heritage quality. It is proposed that thi:, list be given further expert review in the regions and countries where the sites exist.
Comparing the existing tropical forest sites on the World Heritage List with a list of potential sites identified at Berastagi, the experts at the meeting concluded that there was a compelling case for expanding the number and range of tropical forest sites on the World Heritage List.
However, participants also noted that the value of the World Heritage listing process is based largely on globally accepted standards of quality of sites. Therefore, extreme care must be taken in both assessing new nominations and monitoring existing sites, to ensure that the criteria of the World Heritage Convention continuc to be rigorously adhered to.
It was further noted that rapidly expanding scientific capacity for biodiversity assessment could help produce more objective assessment of the biodiversity of sites, and thus aid the selection of sites for World Heritage listing.
The distribution, dimensions, design, and nurnber of tropical forest sites and their relationship with other categories of protected areas vary from one region to another. To most eft'ectively conserve natural heritage values, the best answer might be sites of differing sizes, clusters of sites, or sites linked by 'corridors' of natural habitat, depending on the situation. We call on the World Heritage Committee, in strong alliance nith research institutions. forest and land-use experts, government agencies, and others, to prioritize the development of plans to effectively manage existing World Heritage tropical forest sites as well as sitcs with the potential to be added to the list.
Recommendations Accordingly, the Berastagi policy dialogue recommends that the World Heritage Conunittee:
1. Notes the new tentative lisf of tropicall'orest sites offered h?) the group. 2. Recognizes the urgent need for n spec!fic program ,for World Heritage tropical forest srtes
that ensures their cotzsetvotion, especially thew outstanding utziversal value jor biodiversity. 3. Promotes the systematic iiientificution, protection, and tzomination of new World Heritage
tropical forest sites, using the lrst developed at Berastagi as a guide to particular protected areas or bio-regions to be considered~for nomination.
4. Utilizes the expertise and expel-;wzce of tht. scientific c o m m u n i ~ to jacilitate the identification, assessment, and evaluation qf site.i for nomination to the World Heritage list.
5. Encourages Stare Parties to he Convenfion to consider nominating c1uster.s of sites, where appropriate, to capture the full rcmge of biodiversity in clreas where forests are already fragmented. It was noted hat such foncst clusters often include sites on different sides o f ~~at ional boundaries; therefore, State Parties are encouraged to collaborate and nominate trans-border sites.
2. Research, Assessment, and Mlonitoring
A sound assessment process is important in the identification and protection of the biodiversity and other recognized values of a World Heritage site. It provides a basis for determination of World Heritage valucs prior to nomination, for improved management decisions, and for monitoring and reporting.
Monitoring is an indispensable compont:nt of site management to ensure that management is effective in the conservation of the World Heritage values for which a site has been listed.
A research agenda for each Worlci Heritage site should reflect the World Heritage values that merited the site's being inscribed. It sho~ild also be directed at guiding management responses needed to counter threats to World Hcrila,;e values. Relevant, problem-solving scientific research is one element necessary to ensure a high chance of success in long-term conservation of World Heritage values.
Recommendations Accordingly, the Berastagi policy dialogue recommends that the World Heritage Committee:
1. Ackno~tdedges the importance of biological asst?ssmerzt for both tlze .selection of tentative sites that mu); merit consideration for World I-leritage nomination and for marlagenient planning and decisions to conserve t / ~ e 'outstandirzg universczl values' that merited the lisling.
2. Acknowledges the importance of l~aving manage8rzlent objec-tives for each tropical forest .site that are jhcused on tlir specz$c valntms that merited the site j. ir~clusiotr or1 the World Heritage list, and of conducting ongoir~g monitoring to ensure that management is cfective in conserving those vcllues.
Recommendations to the VVorld Heritage Committee
Over the past 25 years, the World Heritage Convention has played a key role in the conservation of tropical forest biodiversity. The World Heritage List currently includes 33 tropical forest sites totaling 26 niillion hectares of the world's most outstanding forests. These site:s are examples of how the World Heritage Convention supports protected areas and co~r~plements s~~stainahle forest management programs while maintaining forests values.
The World Heritage Conven~ion can niake a major contribution to meeting State Partie\'
international obligations for forest biodiversity clonservation. including those under the Convention on Biological Diversity and cthers emerging through the UNCSD Intergovernmental Forum on Forests.
On 7-1 1 Decemba-1998, 72 experts froi.1 20 different countries convened in Berastagi, North Surnatra. Indonesia, for a policy dialogue on World Heritage tropical forect\. The group developed the following six sets of recommendation:; to be consiclered by the World Heritage Committee:
1. Identification and Nomination of Sites
Notwithstanding the progress already madz in inscribing the existing 33 tropical forest sites 011 the World Heritage I,ist, thc Bcrastagi participants concluded that a number of tropical forest areas with outstanding global biodiversity values are not yet inscribed on the World Heritage List.
International experts have made several attempts to identify the world's biodiversity-rich tropical forest sites of highest priority. Such attempts have come from World Resources Institute (WRI), World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Conserviuion International (Cl), World Conservation Union (IUCN). World Conservation Monitoring Centrc (WCMC), and Birdlife International. Thc Berastagi discussions found a high degree of convergence between these lists, indicating an emerging consensus about what sites have outstanding universal value in relation to the conservation of biological diversity. Man) of these sites may merit consideration for ~~omination to the World Heritage List under criteria i i and iv of the Operational Guidelines.
3 . Promotes the development qf practical biodiversity monitoring tools, including the developtnent of an Assessment and Monitoring Manual based on the best scientific principles, ,for use by site murlagers of World Heritage tropicalJorest sites.
4. Notes that effective rno~lrtoring need not t ~ e expensrve, must be adapted to the local circuntstances, and must be relevant to the needs of local site rnanagors.
3. Tolerance of Human Ulse of World Heritage Tropical Forest Sites
World Heritage tropical forest sites, no matter how large and remote. are oftcn under some form of threat for alternative use. The most serious threats to World Heritage tropical forest sites generally come from large-scale resource development and exploitation driven by corporations or governlnent agencies. Ongoing major threat:; such as this requires a concerted effort to strengthen govenlment commitment ancl capacity to resist and regulate such threats, and particularly to improve spatial land-use planning of arcas around WOI-Id Heritage sites.
Many other human uses ore often occurring at the time of World Heritage listing. The scale of usc is not necessarily an indicalor of the impact on conservation values. All uses, therefore, need to be assessed for impact on World Htritage values. Ongoing monitoring is necessary to determine when uses are inconsistent with the protection of values for which a site was listed, so as to trigger regulation or remedial management when values are threatened.
than 90.000 peoplc reside within more than half of the World Heritage tropical forest sites. frequently have rights - legal and traditional - that predate the inscription of the site on the
orld Heritagc list or its prior e:stablishment as a protected area.
many cases. human interaction with the forest ecosystem has occurred for centuries or millennia hile biodiversity value has been maintained. This should he recognized and be reflected in
ining management practices.
ement of such World Heritage sites should not necessarily have as an objective the tion of all human activities, but rather should be aimed at managing activities that pose the threat in ways that will t:nsure preservation of the values for which the site was listed. For on, great carc must be t:.kcn in defining the values relavent to the World Heritage listing at of nomination.
Similar care is needed in understanding traditional indigenous uses and their impacts, past and present, on the status of the biodiversit:, of sites. As part of this process, new uses need to be distinguished from traditional uses. A precautionary approach would be to generally discourage or prohibit new uses unless compatibility with management objectives is readily demonstrable.
Recommendations Accordingly, the Berastagi policy dialogue recommends that the World Heritage Committee:
I . Encourages State Parties, where people are included in a World Heritage tropicul forest site, to recognize the need to car-efi~lly define the World Heritage rralues and managenzent objectives prior to asse.r.ring the compatibility of uses; recognize the need to ackno\tvledge and understand the tradirronal and other uses of the site before taking uny action to eliminate such uses; and consider adoption of the principle of collaborative manugement between the site manager and the people living in or itsing the sita as a proven model to resolve issues relating to traditional or pre-existing use rzgehts.
2 . Irzvites State Parties to identifj, su~i-essful examl,les of integrating use with munagement for biological diversity objectiv~s as LZ "best practice" model for consideration by other site managers.
4. Financial and Other Support
A main threat to several World Heritage tropical forest sites is the lack of capacity and lack of funding for even basic conservation programs. Further, it is apparent that management agencies of globally important tropical forest sites thzt may merit consideration for World Heritage nomination lack the funding necessary to prepare no~ninations, meet the criteria for listing, and institute basic management programs.
International assistance to World Heritage sites has often taken the form of development projects aimed at fostering the livelihood of local communities that are consistent with the maintenance of conservation values. The rate of real success in such projects has been low, but much has been learned over the past decade of what will work in specific circumstances. A review of such development project experiences relevant to World He:ritage would be a useful study.
Recommendations Accordingly, the Berastagi policy dialogue recommends that the World Heritage Committee:
l . Note.s the concern of the Berustugi rneeting about the inadequacy of current funding ancl other assistance to adequa.'ely ident~b, plan, monitor, research, and rnunuge tropical forests qf 'outstunding unii~ersul iialue', regarilless of whether or not thej~ are already listed.
2 . Recognizes the urgent ner(d to actively pronzote increasecl fi~nding and other assistance to facilitate the protection and conservaticln of tropical forests.
3. Recognizes the need to ensure that all funding and ussistance sholrld, as fur as possible, strengthen or enhance exisling manage~nent cal)aci@ and u11oid creating new, inappropriate. or irrelevant demands on the time anti resources of ntcrnngrrs. In particular, there i.r nn ongoing need to direct funding and other assisttrnce to skills enhancernerit of local site managers through training nnd professional development.
4. Pro~note.~ better ,fitnding of World Heritage tropical forest sites through itltergovernn~ental cooperation, trust fitnds, foltndations, support groups, und the busiriess sector.
5. Information
Information on World Heritage sites is an essential resource for managers. It is also vital in enabling the global community of concernetf citizens to be aware of the values of these sites and the threats they face. Availability of information about these sitcs will strengthen the hand of governments and civil society n maintaining the values for which the site was inscribed on the World Heritage list.
Recommendations Accordingly, the Berastagi policy dialogue recommends that the World Heritage Committee:
l . Acknowledges the irrzportonce of ready access to infornlation to fucilitate the identification, delineation, and rrronugenzent of tropical forest sites.
2 . Strengthens exislirtg informatinn systcnls ancl plnrnores the cle\,eloprnent oj'appropriate new systenrs to serve the need:: of the World Heritage forest sites and, in particular, considers: u greatly enhanced World Her-itugr Center web site to JLilcilitate rapid dissetnination of
information relevant to World Heritage; the estahlishrnent of nenvorks o f World Heritage experts, nzancrgeix, scientists, and others to,fcrcilitate thl~,flo\rj of infor-mation and technologv trrrnsfer und to aid pi-ohlcmn~ solving: and s~rpporting regionnl nefi4,orb (many of ~s~hich h u ~ e
been agreed uporl in principle at World Herituge v~orksl~ops) to gather, shore, atid disseminute inforrnarion on World Heritage rropical forest sites.
These recommendations are hereby submitted to the World Her~tage Committee to assist in the important and pressing task of protection of the outstanding universal heritage of biodiversity contained in the world's the trol~ical forests.
The participants in the Berastagi policy dialogue hereby actions.
commit themselves individually promoting the
World Heritage Forest
not devote substantial consideration to relations with local people. This is increasingly true of international attempts to provote the conservation of World Heritage tropical forest sites.
However, establishing ICDF's that actually work has proven more difficult than popularizing the concept or raising the funds. More than a decade after the ICDP approach was first promoted, there are still very few clearly succc:ssful cases where local people's development needs and aspirations have been reconciled with protected area management. There is growing realization that ICDPs have run the risk of contributing effectively neither to conservation nor to development. The result is a big gap between rhetoric and reality. Any expansion of international efforts to protect World Heritage tropical forest propct~ties must avoid falling into thls same trap. We need to base our strategies for World Heritage site conservation on the expensive lessons we have learned over the past decade.
Key Considerations for World Heritage Tropical Forest Site Relations with Local People
Participatory Approaches It is clear that more effort. must be invested in participatory approaches for them to make substantive headway, but the problem is often that protected area managers and staff have little understanding, appreciation, tor trust in the capacity of local people. There has been great caution
about how much and what kind of local participation in protected area management is desirable or optimal, and the emphasis has tended to be on education, on the
assumption that this would develop more positive local attitudes toward conser\.ation. rather than on a deeper analysis of underlying resource
management problems.
The rationale for establishing a World Heritage site will often not be clear to local people. Investment in a commitment to real participation in planning and decision-making is probably needed at least as much on the managers' side as it is on that of the local people.
1,ocal people's differing circumstances, and the implications for their interactions with protected areas, are recognized as varying greatly, and need to be understood on a site-by-site basis and considered before management interventions are begun. It may be important, for instance, to distinguish
between indigenous populations and more recent immigrants. There are as yet few successful examples of how to tackle these issues effectively; however, experience with common property resource managcment systems may provide an ~mportant starting point at certain locations where it may be possible to build on existing innovative local management regimes. Efforts to broadly include civil society and a variety of stakeholdc~rs are often key, although eliciting effective local participatior~ is often casler in a democratically organized society.
Local hcentives Local people with modest incomes XI: often the losers in the establishment and management of protected areas - usually in terms of lost or restricted access. By contrast, the benefits often accrue to the global community. -
Appreciation of such cost/benefit imbalances, if they exist, is often an important starting point for 25 planning management interventions.
Since it is increasingly accepted that forest composition is often the result of long-standing human intervention and enrichment, the extent of human labor invested in forest areas needs more recognition, and the valuing of cultural lalldscapes more prominence.
Development agencies have increasingly supported protected area management with relatively large amounts of financial resources. But, so far at least, there is little evidence that higher levcls of funding correlate with successful cons~:l-vation. This is partly a result of the inability of the agencies that disburse large sums of monty to disbursc these funds in ways which are consistent with either local absorptive capacities 01- long-term susrainability.
Effective incer~tives may oftcn result from n:cognizing rather than denying local tenure or land-rights (whether these arc based on customary or nationally I-ec:ognized rights). Achieving a recognizable legal basis for prior land claims and negotiating around these is a major step. This involves achieving mutual agrecmerlt on the location of protectc:d area boundaries and buffer zones and becoming aware of pre-existing local boundaries through p;u-.icipatory mapping and land use planning.
The possibility of reach~ng contractual agreements between protected areas and local people should be carefully explored through an appropriate process. Both sides to the contract should be able to withdraw their s~~pport if the other side does not satisfy its side of the contract. Further, the contracts themselves need to be flexible enough to be modified by mutual agreement if circulnstanccs change.
protected areas and for the role of local peoplc with~n and around them. Exaniplcs have so far been relatively rare (the East Usambara Forest catchment project in Tanzania and the Queensland Wet Tropics World Heritage forest site arc just two examples), but it should become more cornnion in the future that managers of protected areas negotiate for better land rights for local people as part of the package of trade-olfs and incentives. It will often be necessary to address the competinp , interests of different government agencies in this process.
If ordinary protected arcas cannot get i t right,'Norld Heritage sites will not be able to, either. Failure derives only partly Crom the people-parks relal:ionship - this is not the fundamental problem. More focus is needed on the national level policy and institutional context.
Implications for World Heritage Sites
I . The above points focus on operational aspects of the relationship between local people and World Heritage sites. But these serve to highlight a missing part of the overall equation involving the World Heritage Convent~on: the link between World Heritage sites and the global comrnunity that has made a comniitment to their protection. World Heritage sites have 'outstanding universal values'; however. if universal means global, then the global commitment to World Heritage sites - as evidenced by 150 countries that have signed the World Heritage Convention - has yct to be identified in tangible terms, let alone delivered. All of the signatory governments have rights and responsibilities, not only the nations in whicli World Heritage sitcs are located, or the local people who must forgo a part of their livelihoods. Defining the obligations o l governments toward World Heritage sites has barely begun. With a treaty. organizatior~. ancl commitment of 150 nations already in place, the World Heritage Center may be able to play a key role in initiating discussions and eventually negotiations over these right; and responsib~lities.
2. Internationally, more varied strategies are probably needed for different kinds of countries. Countries in the OECD's LDC list (the poorest countries) cannot respond to the presence ol World Heritage sites in the same way as middle-income and newly industrializing countries.
Other key factors include: (a) The strength or weakncss of legislation and government institutions, including forest
and wildlife departments; (h) Whether populations are predoniir~antly rural or plrdominantly urban (with important
implications for thc function of protected area.s as mainly recreation sites or rnainly inhabited areas);
(C) The possibility of corruption when the granting of concessions and other turnkey activities is involved; and
(d) The degree of polilical stability or instability.
A tailored protocol, wilh more finar~cial assistance to poorer countries, would seem to bc essential.
3. The World Heritage Convention has inscribed a set of outstanding tropical forest sites. Much could be leaned from {he dissemination of information on successful examples of World Heritage management practices and outcomes. A World Heritage Best Practices Working Group could support thi:; by helping to analyze. document, and exchange information about such expenences.
Acknowledgments.
This sectton is based on n,ork jinm tlie di.rr~rss~on group in Bcrusfagi led by Micharl Wells and Gill Shel~lzrl-d and ~itbsequent input and edrt.r by ~et'ercrl other pnrtlcrparrts.
Human Use of
Human Use of World Heritage Tropical Forests
populat~ons have frequently been accepted within protected areas. There is now growing evidence that these populations have depleted the wildlife through subsistence hunting. In fact. depressed wildlife populations in tropical forests appears to be the norm lather than the exception. Hunting can also affect predator populat~ons; for example, local hunt~ng of ungulates in lndian t~ge r reserves diminishes prey for this highly endangered species. Hunting of larger vertebrates also affects the wildlife populations attractile for nature-based tourism.
Extractive activities may be authorized and even pro~notcd by national governments. Even where the primary activity is puipo~-tc:dly regulated (e.g., timber harvesting and mining), the associa~ed infrastructure development usually facililates or promotes secondary extractions, such as commercial hunting of bush meat or local marketing of construction materials. More -
often, harvesting of non-timber products (such as bush meat, fruit, and rattans) is illegal but seldom controlled. Many extractive activities in~lolve people living in or near the protected areas, but little is known regarding economic returns from their harvests. Bush meat and plants are typically considered to be open-access resources, the use of which is difficult to control or regulate. The dilemma is that we know too litlle about the condi1:ions under which extractive activities pose immediate threats to biodiversity. The critical issue is to adequately define the values for which areas are designated and lo put into place monitoring and assessment programs that will alert managers to deleterious changes that are taking place.. The management authority must then havc the mandate and resources to take remedial action to mitigate the threat.
Nature-based tourism is one human activity frequently touted as a benign human use of protected areas. Though most developing countric:~ are strongly promoting tourism as a source of foreign exchange, it is not a panacea. Visitation levels in World Heritage tropical forests are much lower than in World Heritage siles representing other ecosystems, such as the game-rich savannahs in East Africa. This is probably the result ol the former's inaccessibility and its lack or lower visibility of charismatic large vertebrates.
The best examples of nature-based tourism integrate education into their management plans, involvc local people (especially as naturalist guides), and devolve significant revenues to local communities. These benefits are often limited and fall far short of their goals. The integration of local people in the control and regulat~on of uses in conservation and sustainable development projects is a process that may take years, and requires considerable training and finances. Nevertheless, integration of local people is a worthwhile investment with long-term returns.
Threats
Dctern~ining when human presence and use of the natural resources in tropical forests threaten conservation values is critical. The response to perceived threats must be proportionate to thc degree to which the consel-bation values of the site are likely to be diminished or lost. The key is a clear definition of what the c:onservation values are and the capability to monitor changes in them over time. A monitoring program is nect:ssary to provide indicators and data that contribute to adaptive management.
Monitoring helps to define thc limits to acceptable change. It is especially important in developing countries that monitoring acti.~ities should be relatively small in number, simple, cost-effective, and implemented over the long term.
Some high-priority attributes Lo monitor for protected tropical forests might include: 1) conversion to non-forest uses (e.g., slash-and-bum agriculture, roads, and mining): 2) invasive species; and 3) seasonal patterns in the supply of bush mcat (including fish where appropriate) to local markets. Detailed trend data by specie:^ and sizelweight classes (preferably quantitative) can be collected easily by local staff with periodic professional guidance and analyses. Population monitoring of keystone or flagship species is an attractive scientific cndeavor: however, it is costly and difficult to sustain over many ycars. 111 contrast, sirnple trcnd data on threat-based indicators may be useful surrogates for interpreting the health and status of wildlife populations in protected areas. It is particularly important that site-specific monitoring plans bc developed to address the key attributes and principal threats to the biodiversity of each site.
Tropical forests house a hugely disproportionate amount of Earth's biological diversity, dcspite past and present human influence:;. Where there is a paradigm shift from pristine state to acceplable human uses, i t is important to apply the precautionary principle that conservation values are not compromised. The major challencge for conservation at the tuln of the millennium is the
developmetit of conservation models that integrate compatible human uses with tlie protection of ecosystem functions and biodiversity. The presence
of human communities in protected areas may be a double-edged sword: that is, they may have appreciable impacts on local
resources while providing front-line defense against external threats (for example, local clans resisting timber concessionaires in Papua New Guinea).
The reality of most tropical forests is that they will continue to be used to meet human needs and aspirations. Yet, there is hope that creative and adaptive management of tropical forests can deliver net benefits to conservation.
Conclusions
Management of World Heritage sites must recognize the many uses of nature and the prescnce of human communities in the majority of tropical forest protected areas. Present-day ecosystem structure and composition may havc been strongly affected by anthropogenic activities in what is now considered old-growth forest. These past activities nlust not be used to justify inappropriate uses in protected areas. The classic model of inviolate core areas is still a legitimate conservation goal. Numerous threats to biodiversity ale the norm, and these will no doubt increase in the future. Empirical evidence is abundant that elinlination of all local uses is rarely a viable political option. Social pressures to continue or intensify ttxisting uses of tropical forests are so great that legislative and regulatory measures will often meet overwhelming local resistance. In these circumstances, adaptive management that legitimizes and controls appropriate uses consistent with the area's conservation values provide the best option.
Acknowledgements
This section i.s based on work from the discussion group in Rerustagi led by Gary Hartshorn and Tim O'Brien, and subsequent input uncl etiits by Putrick Anderson, John Baker; Giselr Didier; Peter- Hitchcock, Natarajarz Ishn*arutz, Jefl McNeely, Vl? Molzan, Jean Ngog Nje, Mario Ramos, Doug Sheil, Todd Sigaty Miriam van Heist, Rursell Watkilzson and Michael Wells.
The me
F.r*e'-.J-%T*a?
Role of Assessment * W ----.-"-e--~-------.---
r % - - - S , d P - " - -ixllmiZ-pjimIp.s_%"fP,w
The Role of Assessmer~t and Monitoring in enhancing the Contribution of Natural World Heritage Sites to Tropical Forest Biodiversity Conservation
Introduction
A number of international agreements > in1 to conserve tropical forest biod~vcrsity. The World Heritage Conventio~i has played a very significant, and so far largely under-appreciated, role. In September 1996. the Tropical Ra~nfon:st World Helitage Conference in Cairns. Australia, drew attention to the important role this Convention plays in tropical forest conservation. The meet~ng recognized that there was considerable potential for the World Heritage Convention to play a greater role in protecting areas iniportan~ for tropical Sorest biodiversity.
This note discusses the importance of :xisting World Heritage Areas for biodiversity. It also discusses the necessity and methods for .issessing ancl monitoring biodiversity in World Heritage areas to aid the process of site nomination, day-to-day management. and long-term conservation.
How much biodiversity is found in the existing tropical forest World Heritage Areas?
Many authors believe that niore than 50'% of Earth's biodiversity is unevenly distributed among tropical forests . For many groups of anirnaIs and plaruts, i t is likely that rnorc than 80% of slobal species are found in ti.opic;ll forests. It is surprising that we do not have a niore accurate estimate of how important tropical forests are in housing biological diversity. At least for a few World
Heritage sites. wc have an indication of just how important they are in conserving biodiversity. Manu World Heritage site covers some 1.5 million hectares of rainsorest at the eastern foothills of Peru. This single area is home to 900 spe:cies of birds (about 10% of lhe world's bird species). It is
also home to about 1,500 species of butterflies (approximately 25% of all butterfly species in South .41nerica and about 10% of the world's butterfly species). For many groups of Australian organisms: a high proportion of the spec .es are found in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area in
north C!ueensland, and many species are endemic to this rainforest region. This rainforest is of particular evolutionary significance as it contains 12 of the 19 families of primitive flowering plants. two of these being found nowhere else in the world. Many of the tropical forest World Heritage Areas were nominated for their endemic biodiversity and are important reserves for species listed by IUCN as threatened or endangered. Some 400 endemic specie:; are found in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area and as such have legal protection from the State and Federal
Government. What is unclear, b1.1t would be interesting to examine further, is to what extent World Heritage listing has led to improvements in the status of listed species and whether their conservation status is any greater than in non-world heritage listed sites. These examples indicate that the existing tropical forest 'World He]-itage Areas already provide protection for a surprisingly high proportion of the world's l.tiodivcrsity.
Assessment, reporting, and monitoring
There are three related. but dislinct, activities undenaken in the adaptlve management of natural areas. These are:
(a) Assessment. which seeks to gain an understanding of the status of a particular characteristic, such as biodiversity, social or economic conditions, threats, and so on. An initial assessment is usually required when the status of an area changes. such as when it is listed as a World Heritage site. Assessmerit may often be resource intensive, although techniques such as 'Rapid Bitdiversity Assessment' offer less-intensive approaches.
Monitoring, which is rnare nal~owly focused on actions. or trends in a palticular characteristic. to identify options fol- appropl-iate management responses. Monitoring i r most effeclive when it is internalized into the management of a site, allowing managers both to conduct the monitoring themselves and to determine appl-cpriate responses. Ideally. it should be possible to undertake monitoring on an ongoing basis, which mr:ans that the techniques used must be appropriate to the capacity and ability of the managers.
(c) Reporting, which results in a description of current status andlor trends in a particular characteristic. Typically, the infortnation used in reporting may be a subset of, or a compilation of the data collected during an assessment. Reporting is often an external requirement, such as the periodic reports required under the World Heritage Convention.
For maximum effectiveness, an assessment should address three major arcas:
(a) An historical perspective that describes past human nianagernent, natural disturbance patterns, species mixes and levels, and so on. This will help to describe the range of variation in which the system and its natural components naturally operates, as well as some conditions/components that Inay nct be possible to maintain, it is needed to be dete~mined the tolerance of change in the ecosystem;
(b) A current snapshot describing the characteristics that make the site of World Heritage quality: and
(c) The dcsired future coridition of the area and the management strategy to reach that condition.
Designing biodiversity assessmenlt tools: What are World Heritage sites managed for?
What kind of biodivcrsity asscssnicnt ancl nionitoring is necessary and how extensive should this be for any particular site? We need to examine tlie basis for nomination of a site, and to look at the kinds of impacts that are affecting the area or arc likely to aflect thc area in the future. Clearly. tlie outstanding features of a particular World Hcritagc site will help guide monitoring. For example, if a site is nominated for the sigr~ificance and rarity of populations of threatened mammal species, priority must be given to monitoring the mammals and their habitat.
Tools for assessing and monitoring biodiversity, musi be practical and usable at the local level. preferably by local personnel. This reduces the costs of operations, expands thc skill base in the region and reduces the necessity for outside participation. The result is a greater involvenlent from the local community and hence greater support Sor the World Heritage site in question.
Threats to World Heritage sites vary in t~:rrns of the spatial and temporal scale of impact on the integrity of the area. For example. large numbers of tourists might be thought to have a major impact, whereas in practice the effects of large numbers of tourists can be very local. On the other hand, the long-term and insidious irnpac~:~ of climate change are likely to be more broad scalc, albeit on a longer time frame. It is particularly important that levels of acceptable change ale established early on to provide warning signals so that management actions can be taken.
'sLrojJa uo!leAlasuo:, paqala.rlsJai\o Japu!q 01 parnolie aq 1011 lsnirr puc s~a8eueur 01 anle,l apl!l ai\r!i[ ,alaql ale sapads Aucur moll, pasod i?!u!~q Apira.unn suo!lt;anb ,Lltsia,\!po!q, aql JO Aueur '1selluo3 u~ .as!.rr! SJ!~!LI~~JO~~O aql irailM passa.rppr! aq plnoqs ila!q,cl\ 'suogsanb qxcasal ~ue~.rodur! alc.rauad Leiu lxaluoa ~rraruaSuueiu le2o[ aql U! S~JII~~~OJ~ prr~ ,sa.rnsr?aru alendo~dde lsou~, ail1 Zutugap JO ssa3o.rd aqL ~s.ra2eueiu 01 alqenlcA AJJA ~q ualjo [[!,W a3uep!n2 1.radxa aiuos pirr! sls!lua!z~s PUF S~S~UO!~~A.I~SUO~ Aq paAo[diua a.rv saq3eo~dde Zu!.rol!:rour ]uci\a[al pur! LI1jasn Aue~
.lnJasn lou S! q3Jcasa.r lcql ,<vs 01 lou S! s~il~ 'ipleasal A~~s.ra,\!potq 3!urape3r! jo siro!lsanb lua.rJn3 aql JO Aur! du!~los Inoql!M ,luauraZcue~u uo!lr?A.rasiro3 poo8, a1oiuo.rd pur! 'iir.ro.ji~! 'ap!nS /(peal3 ue.) afi .umop In3 Bu~aq an 1salo.j aql jo suo!8al .ra~ourai aqi al!i[~ ,Zu!lirnoa Awannq, ale:)oi\pe IOU lsnur JM .sa!i!.ropd luaura2eunur Jeap ssaJppe lsnw suotlsanb ipmasay[ .si3ediir! sno!lalalap ql!m uwa saw~lauros pue 'itjauaq [em[ nln!l qi!~ s~a2euc~u caJe pal3alo.rd oluo palsroj aq 01 sapuaZe aplslno jo sepuai?!r! aq~ puc ,scap! lad, ~oj uoururo3 S! 11 .sa!pnls ~!~31osa aJoiu JOJ p:ng!.mes lou ale (Su
Summary
The existing conservation
33 World Heritage tropical forest sites make a significant of tropical forest t-liodiversity. This contribution has been
contribution to the estimated for birds
and could be better-documented for othcr groups.
Assessment and monitoring are distinct activities; each contributes to better biodiversity conservation outcomes at listed natural World Heritage sites.
Assessment identifies an area's natural World Heritage values and their past, present, and desired future conditions. It occurs principally prior to site nomination when i t must evaluate the natural World Heritage valucs of a proposed site in the context of other existing 01-
proposed sites. After listing, assessment colltinues when required in support of unanticipated managemen1 and threat-abatement needs..
Or~ce an area is nominally 'protected,' monitoring focuses on the prompt and direct observation o i activit~es that threaten the area's natural World Heritage values - to ensure that site managers know whether the values are, in fact, being protected. Consequcntly, monitoring is an indispensable component of site management and should be casy and cheap to apply.
Monitoring and assessment, when done well.. is a vital and integrated component of good protected area management. Yet, some biodiversity studies detract from, rather than contribute to, the attainment of good management. Scientists and donors have to be much more aware of the limited resources and capacities that exist i n many protected areas, and ensure that priority activities (such as patrolling) are given adequate resources.
Scientific studies should support and be integrated with management and should not be seen as an alternative to the core site rnaintenancc activities of protected area personnel.
Acknowledgments
This section is baser1 on work from the cliscussion group In Rernstagi lrrl 13s Nigel Stork, Earl Sc~xon, Tim Boyle, John Youlsen arzd Cloug Slziel rrnd subsequetlt inprrt and edits by several other participants.
A List of Potential Forest Sites for Consideration for World
6. The distribution, design. dimt:nsion, and number of tropical forest sites, and their relationship with other categories of protected areas, will differ from one area to another. In many instances, clusters, chains. cr corridors of protected areas will provide the only feasible system of achieving forest biodiversity conservation goals in areas where human population or other factors preclude the ~:stablishrnent of vast protected areas.
7. Despite the limitations of size. it was agreed that the goals and criteria for World Heritage sites - for long-term maintenance of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and evolutionary processes - could be attained in all sites listed, which would provide a global network of 'holocene refugia' for the future generations.
The tentative list
8. The attached list is derivecl from the participants' proposals for speciric eco-regions, protected areas. or clusters of sites. As such. i t presents the 'best approxin~ation' of sites that might be considered at subsequent national. regional, and global workshops. For some regions (the Andes. Amazon basin and Indonesia. for example). rather long lists were submitted. These have not helm abbreviated and they must be furthcl- cvaluatcd to determine eligibility.
9. The accompanying list of ciindid;~t~ areas for World Heritage listing comprise not only existing protected areas but also proposed protected areas and areas that have no protection. To ensure that the World Heritage List everltually includes the global best of' the tropical forests will require pi+ornotion of protectio1.1 and nomination of thc candidate arcas to the countries in which they are located. For some candidate areas. it may -ecluire providing assistancc to the cc)untry to facilitate the necessary pre-nomination protection 2und management planning. Gloh~.lly important. areas dcscrvc global attention. encourafcmeni, and assistance.
The way ahead
10. The Berastagi workshop provided llnanimous agreement that the World Heritage Convention provides a unique opportunity to support the establishment of a global network of 'holocene refugia'. It also recognized the powerful and objective information systelns that an contribute to the refinement of the tentative list.
11. It is proposed that the list be considered at national, regional, and global levels, leading toward its further improvement. The process cciuld be conducted via the Internet under the direction of one of the NGOs currently taking a leading role in the synthesis of available data.
Acknowledgments
This section is based on workfrom the discussion group in Berastagi led by Brian Huntley, Russ Mittermeier and Jin~ Thorsell and subsequent input and edits by several other participartts.
A LIST OF TROPICAL FOREST SITES OF HIGH BlODlVERSlN VALUES WHICH MAY MERIT CONSIDERATION FOR WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATION
(Further s tudy and rev iew i s required t o determine wh ich si tes m i g h t have WH potent ia l)
( Potential Sites l
Cluster 1 : nominated 1998 llha do Mel Superagui Guaraquecaba Guaraquecaba llha do Cardoso Cananeia - Iguape-Peruibe Pariquera Abaixo Chauas Jureia Jacupiranga
Eco~region 1 WH Site
Locat ion 1
Argentina
Global 200 Ecoregion
Cluster 2: nominated 1998 Alto do Ribeira Intervales Xitue Carlos Botelho
1.
Cluster 3: nominated 1998 Descobrimento Monte Pascoal Pau-Brasil
Brazilian Atlantic Forests
/ Addit~onal potential sites
Cluster 4: Serra Geral Aparados da Serra Sao Joaquim Serra do Tabuleiro
Desengano
Cluster 6 : Caparao Sooretama Linhares Rio Doce Conduru Mangrove Complex of Camamu Chapada Diamant~na Muricy Serra da Estrela
Potential Sites
Cluster 5: Morro Grande Morro do Diabo Serra do Mar llhabela Serra da Boca~na ltatiaia Papagaio Tingua Poco das Antas
P-
Global 200 Ecoregion Ecoregion Location
Sangay
Venezuela,
l -
Yabuti (Argentina)
Cordillera de Merida (Venezuela) Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta
(Colombia) Serrania de la Macarena (Tinigua
and Picachos) (Colombia) Yasuni National Park (Ecuador)
Andean Yungas Ecuador, I Manu-expanded to SW. Direction ' Colombia, 1 l? ib iseo 1 (Peru)
-
Venezuela. Tambopata and Candamo (Peru) Peru, Bol~vla Vilcabamba (Peru)
Madidi (Bolivia) Noel Kempff Mercado (Bolivia) Iguazu-Mbaracayu (Paraguay) Zona R e s e ~ a d a del Aporimac Cordillera da Sira (Peru)
. . Pastaza Moronz (Peru)
11. / S.W. Amazonian I Peru, Brazil, b~ 1 Xingu (Brazil)
Global 200 Ecoregion
Coastal Venezuela Montane Forests
Greater Antillean Moist Forests
Choco Darien Moist Forests
Ecoregion Location
Venezuela
.Cuba, Haiti, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Dominican Rep. - Colombia. Panama, Ecuador
Moist Forests
7. Varzea Flooded Peru. Brazil,
Bolivia
Nukak (Colombia)
WH Site
None
Morne Trois Pitons
Los Katiosl Darien
Potential Sites
Cordillera de la costa (Venezuela)
Sierra Madre (Cuba)
ChocolDarien region. Expand Mesoamerican corridor to include. Utria (Colombia) Sanquianga (Colombia) Gorgona Island (Colomb~a) Coto-Cayapas (Ecuador) Tumbes region (Peru)
l l
Forests Venezuela 1 Cahuinari (Colombia)
S.E. Amazonian ~ e r r a do ~ i v i s o r (Brazil) Pacaas-Novos (Brazil)
Puinawai (Colombia) Anavilhanas (Brazil)
Chimalapas and Ocote (Mexico) Expanding Tikal to Mayan reserves including Calakmul, Montes Azules (Mexico)
Transition zone in Oaxaca including the Chinantla (Mextco)
Guanacaste (Costa Rica)
Jau (Brazil) Mamiraua (Brazil) Lago Piratuba (Brazil) Zona Reservada do GueDDi
8. Talamancan and Costa Rica, Talamanca lsthmian Pacific Panama Range La Forests Amistad
9. Napo Moist Ecuador, Rio Abiseo Forests Colombia, Peru
10. Rio Negro Juruea Colombia,
Moist Forest ,
Moist Forests Brazil, Peru, Venezuela
Global 200 Ecoregion
Guayanan Forests 'Tepui forrnatus
Ecoregion Location
Guyana, French Guinea, Venezuela, Suriname, Brazil.
\NH Site Potential Sites
Ganaima Guyanne Francoise Kayateur Falls Centrai Sunname Kanuku Mountains Caura River Watershed Chiribiauele (Colombia)
Madagascar Moist Forests / Madagascar 1 C;u~nean Moist Forests
Montane Forests
Guinea, Liberia, Togo. Cote d'lvoire Ghana, S~erra Leone
Kenya, Tanzania
- Tanzania,
Coastal Forests Somalia, I Mozarnbiaue
M3unt Nirnba
-. --
None Cluster of areas to be determined ~nclud~ng:
Usurnbaras, Pare Uzungwa. Ulugurus (Tanzania)
Tana River (Kenya) Pangani, Kilwa (Tanzania)
Kenya ' I
/&tlertine Rift / Rwanda. 1 / Highland Forests
i I l
Uganda, Tanzania. Burundi,
~wlsnzor i Mts. Bwindi Forest Kat uzi-Bieqa I D.R. Congo I Okapi
I&st African
l
I Kenya, I ~ r ~ e n y a 1 1 / Highland Forests 1 a / ~ i l i n~an ja ro l E'gon
19. 1 Seychelles and Mascarine Islands Forests
20. Gulf of Guinea Forests
Seychelles Valee de Mai Cornoros. I Aldabra Atoll Reunion, Rodrigues. Mauritius
Principe, Equatorial
Gran Comoro
Potential Sites
Forests Canary. Cape Verde
Cameroon, None Coastal Gabon. Congo, Forests Nigeria.
Eq. Guinea, Benin
Lac Lobeke - Nki Bournba -Bek, Minhebe
R. Conao. Guiriea
Northeastern D R Congo. Manovo- Congo Basln Sudan, C A F Gounda-St Forests I Uaanda Flor~s
Salonga Basin Forests i Angola. / Okapi
1 D.R. Congo
Laos. Thailand
r ; W w i r Moist Forests
North Anrnamite Range Including: Phong Nha (VN) Vu Quang (VN) Pu Mat (VN) Hin Namnu possibly some sites in Lao PDR
Cluster including: Silent Valley, Karimpuzha, Nilgiri Thar, Agastyarnalai, Periyar, Wynad, Mudhurnalai Nagarahole, Biligiri, Rangaswamy hills. Mundanthurai Bandi~ur
Srl Lankan 1 Sri Lanka Moist Forests 1
l
Tenasserim Myanmar,
Peninsular Malaysia, Thailz~nd Malaysian Lowland Forests
Sinharaja
Huai Kha Khaengl
Thung Yai, Naresuan None
Adam's Peak Horton Plains Hakgala S.N.R
Myinmo Melatkat (Myanmar) Andaman Coast (Thai) cluster
Malaysia-Thailand trans-border park including: Halebala and Belum
Taman Negara cluster including Krau (Malaysia)
Khao Sok./Khong Lan (Thailand)
Global 200 Ecoregion
T_i_- Islands Lowland
Forests
Sumatran Montane Forests
33.
Philippines Moist Forest
Central Borneo Montane Forests
34.
36. l Sulawesi Moist Forests
Northern Borneo Palawan Moist Forests
Moluccas ~ o i s t - Forest
Indochina Sub-tropical Moist Forests
China Subtropical Forests r
Ecoregion Location
India. lndonesia
lndonesia
Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysla
Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, Philippines
Philippines
lndonesia
lndonesia
Thailand. China, Vietnam, Myanrnar. Laos
China
WH Site
- Ujung Kulon (Indmesia)
None
None
None
Mt. Huangl Shan Wu Ling Yuan
Potential Sites
Berbak (Indonesia) cluster including: Leuser Ecosystem (Indonesia) Kerinci Seblat (Indonesia) Bukit Barisan Selatan (Indonesia)
Bukit Barisan Mountains,a cluster includling: Leuser Ecosystem (Indonesia)
Kerinci Seblat (Indonesia) Bukit Barisan Selatan (Indonesia)
Central Borneo Mountains, a cluster including:
Sebuku Sernbakung (Indonesia) Kayan Mentarang (Indonesia) Bentuang Karirnun (Indonesia) Lanjak Entimau (Malaysia) Batang Ai (Malaysia) Pulonq Tau (Malavsia) Gn. Kinabalu (Malaysia) Gn. Mulu (Malaysia) plus part of Lobi (Brunei)
St. Paul (Philippines) Serawak-Kalirnantan trans-border to be defined
Palawan (Phi l i~~ines) A cluster including Cordillera Range (Philippines) cluster
Palanan (Philippines) a cluster including: Mt. Giting-giting (Philippines)
Mt. Kitanglad (Philippines)
A cluster including: Durnoga (Indonesia) Lore Lindu (Indonesia) - None
None
Global 200 Ecoregion Ecoregion Location
WH Site I Potential Sites
Northeastern lndia and Myanrnar Hill Forests
Forests
Manas Kaziranga
India, Myanmar, Bangladesh
lndia None l Taiwan Montane Forests
Taiwan None l Hainan lsland Forests
China None I ;:.. 1 Nansei Shoto Archipelago Forests
New Caledonia Moist Forests
Japan Yakushima Island 1
New Caledonia, France
None l (specific sites to be determined)
New Zealand Trop~cal Forests
Queensland Tropical Forests
Montane Forests
New Zealand Tongariro l Wet Tropics of Sites in Cape York Peninsula Queensland to be def~ned
None Hunstein Range alpha New Guinea
Lorentz (Indonesia) None Lorentz (Indones~a)
Australia
-- Papua New Guinea, Indonesia -- Papua New Guinea, lndonesia - Papua New Guinea, Solomcn lslands
New Guinea Lowland Forests
New Guinea Outer lsland Solomon Moist Forests
(specific sites to be determined)
Lord Howe and Norfolk lslands Forests
Hawaii Moist Forests
Australia Lord Howe I
None Cluster ~n Hawaii United States
South Pacific lslands Forests
Fiji, Samoa, American Samoa
None Kikori-Lake Kutubu a l ~ h a New Guinea
I Global 200 Ecoregion Ecoregion l wH site /Potential Sites I Location
Bolivian Lowland / Bolivia, ~raz*/
Inter Andean Vallevs Drv Forests
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
v .
Southern Mexican Dry Forests
Madagascar Dry Forests
Maputaland Pondoland Dry Forests
Eastern lndochina Dry and Monsoon Forests
Lesser Sundas Dry and Monsoon Forests
Eastern Indian Monsoon Forests
New Caledonia Dry Forests
Hawaii Dry Forests
l Mexico
Madagascar
Mozambique South Africa. Swaziland
Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand
Indonesia
India
New Caledon~a, France
United states
None
Tsingy de Bemaraha
None
Huai Kha Kaengl Thung Yai, Naresuan
Komodo NP
None
None
Hawaii Volcanoes
Dty forest in W. Mexico
Cluster to be determined
Great St. Lucia Wetland Park
Possibly some sites in Lao PDR
Indonesia
Hawaii
I WORLD HERITAGE TROPICAL FOREST SITES AND, I
WORLD HERITAGE TROPICAL FOREST SITES AND FOREST PROTECTED AREAS IN SOUTH AMERICA
1030 0 iU)O X00 Rbmlea L- 3
1. Canaima NP 15 8 21. Talamanca Range-La Amistad NP 2. Morne Trois Pitons NP 16. Los Katios NP 6. Maccu Piccu 17. T~kal NP 7. Manu NP 18. RIO Planto Biosphere Reserve
13. Sian Ka'an 19. Dar~en NP 14. Rio Abiseo NP 20. Sangay NP
WORLD HERITAGE TROPICAL FOREST SITES AND FOREST PROTECTED AREAS IN AFRICA
28. Comoe NP 38. Rwenzori Mountian NP 45. Kahuzi Biega NP 29. Mount Nimba Reserve 39. Tsingy de Bemaraha 52. Selous Game Reserve 32. Mount Nimba Reserve 40. Bwindi Impenetrable NP 56. Okapi Faunal Reserve 34. Tai NP 41. Virunga NP 57. Valee de Mal 35. Nikolo-Koba NP 42. Mount Kenya NP 37. Dja Faunal Reserve 43. Salonga NP
CIFOR Center for Internat~onal Forestry Resea~ch P.0 Box 6596, JKPWB Jakarta 10065 Indonesia Tel.: +62 25 1 622622 Fax.:. +62 251 622100 ek~al l . ci£[email protected] '
UNESCO World Heritage Centre 7, Place de Fonte~~oy 75352 Pans 07 SP France Tel.: +33,1 45 681571 Fax: +33 1 45 685570 http.//www:unesco.org/whc
UNESCO 7, Place d~ Fontenoy 72352 Paris 07 SP France Phone: +33 1 45 681 559 Fax: +33 1 45 685570 http://www unesco.otg
World Heritage Centre
03 Pnnled ofi Recycled paper %@ by SMK Gynka Desa Putera
